Posted on 09/10/2014 4:52:12 AM PDT by NYer
Editor’s note: In response to the news that the St. Patrick’s Parade in New York would now accept “gay” groups in the parade and that Cardinal Timothy Dolan would serve as Grand Marshall of the parade, Catholic Citizens of Illinois has sent an open letter to Cardinal Dolan, which is published below.
Catholic Citizens of Illinois, 106 Calendar Court, PMB #122, La Grange, IL 60525-2325
An Open Letter to Cardinal Timothy Dolan
September 5, 2014
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York
1011 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10022
Your Eminence,
We were dismayed and discouraged to read that the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York will now include organizations that openly oppose the Catholic teaching concerning human sexuality. After years of resisting the pressure from gays and big donors as well as the pretense of public support, the parade committee has caved in to their bullying and unreasonable demands. Additionally, we are disappointed that you have agreed to be the Grand Marshall of the parade.
We are fully aware that there are good and holy people with homosexual inclinations that are striving to live chaste lives in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which we are all called to do. However, no one can deceive themselves that the national and international “gay” organizations are striving for that lifestyle. One need only look at the “gay” pride parades around the world and see the public nudity and simulation of sex acts to know that they are portraying an “in your face” demand that such acts be normalized and that we approve of them.
We understand your deference to those who are on the planning committee for the parade and your efforts to not be “judgmental. “ However, we ask you to put aside those concerns, knowing that your primary duty as Cardinal is to act as a “Shepherd of the Faithful,” secondary in authority to that of the Pope.
We implore you to withdraw as Grand Marshall of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade because of the great probability of misunderstandings, confusion and scandal among the faithful. It is likely that many will believe that the Church has changed her teaching that homosexual acts are “disordered” and “can never be approved” and even worse, they may assume that you support such acts. Does the statement of Jesus about scandalizing little ones no longer apply?
We write this letter to you as faithful Catholics and we look to you to give the example of what a true Shepherd must be. We offer our prayers that the Holy Spirit will inspire you and guide you in this important decision.
Sincerely,
Mary Anne Hackett, President
For the Board of Directors and Members of
Catholic Citizens of Illinois
Note: Copies of this letter have been distributed to other Catholic organizations.
Contact: Info@catholiccitizens.org
On the broader question, “Is the doctrine that all doctrine must be found stated explicitly in Scripture found anywhere in Scripture?”
Clearly Peter (and many would say his successors) were given the power to bind and loose.
Mat 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
But we are also warned to beware of the traditions of men.
Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.
Fortunately we have the whole of scripture against which to measure those traditions.
2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy* of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
* prophecy = a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events
“You never answered my question.”
Sure I did. Perhaps it was not an answer you liked? Perhaps you missed it?
I will help by kindly answering you again...
Your question presumes a truth that is false. As such, your question is based on a logical fallacy. To answer it as you phrased it is to assume the presupposition is true, which it is not.
The Holy Scriptures do not have to explicitly state a doctrine in the words you prefer for the doctrine to be absolutely true.
The doctrine of the Triune God is not stated anywhere as, “God is Triune.” The doctrine is composed of the full revelation of God’s nature as revealed in all of Scripture.
I also pointed out that the remaining alternative is to assume with every pagan, that beliefs outside the inspired Scripture are an equal or higher standard than Scripture itself. Scripture teaches the opposite.
Best.
It isn’t a question of whether Scripture is or is not a source of revealed truth. Of course it is.
Which came first, the Church, or the New Testament?
Between the Church and the New Testament: Which did Jesus found, and which did he never mention?
“It isn’t a question of whether Scripture is or is not a source of revealed truth. Of course it is.”
It is the ONLY source of revealed and recorded truth. It isn’t one of many. It is the only one God-breathed. Don’t minimize it.
“Which came first, the Church, or the New Testament?”
Again, you present a false choice with a false presupposition. Your post’s unspoken presupposition is that whatever came first is superior or more authoritative. This is a false presupposition.
God’s written revelation predates the church by thousands of years. Messiah is foretold thousands of years before the church. God was busy at work (as I pointed out in 175 verses of Psalm 119) at providing an authoritative and inspired Word from Him thousands of years before Christ physically walked the earth.
‘Between the Church and the New Testament: Which did Jesus found, and which did he never mention?’
Jesus is the Word of God. He pre-existed for all eternity. God’s Word is eternal.
There is no requirement in the Scriptures that Christ “mention” the new testament for the New Testament to be inspired or authoritative.
Your post confuses “founding” with inspired and authoritative.
Really, your post is a collection of false arguments that defy logic.
I will also point out here that your statement has a third logical fallacy imbedded as a presupposition. WE call it the “new testament”, but that phrase to describe the non-Hebrew inspired Scriptures is not found inside the inspired writings. It is a convenience we use - not different than verse numbers or chapters or page numbers. Your post presumes that Christ never mentioning the New Testament means anything. It means nothing. It was written in time after His ascension. It was in the heart of God from all eternity.
Christ didn’t have to “found” the New Testament. He is the Word of God.
At times like this, I wonder what they teach in schools and catechisms these days.
“It is the ONLY source of revealed and recorded truth.”
How do you know?
The only other source of God’s truth is natural revelation. The Hebrew Scriptures call God’s Words eternal truth. The New Testament Scriptures confirm this also.
Natural revelation testifies to the existence of God through creation (as His Word says).
His inspired Words in Scripture can lead one to salvation and maturity.
But what is the evidence?
“But what is the evidence?”
OK, I am not here to answer twenty questions for you. If you have a point to make, state it. If it is worthwhile, we can discuss it.
I will answer this final question from you.
Evidence for natural revelation is creation itself. It testifies to the existence of a Creator. Even if you are blind, you can feel the heat of the sun, as the Psalm tell us.
Evidence for the veracity of Scripture, is everything we see playing out in history, everything we hold dear, like the coming of Christ, his virgin birth, location, etc. prophesied by the Scriptures and verified in history.
best.
My point was that there is nothing in Scripture that militates against a Church that hands on tradition that includes some knowledge that was not recorded in Scripture, but was recorded in the generations that followed immediately, and includes certain interpretations of Scripture, and ruled out certain interpretations of Scripture as well.
“My point was that there is nothing in Scripture that militates against a Church that hands on tradition that includes some knowledge that was not recorded in Scripture, but was recorded in the generations that followed immediately, and includes certain interpretations of Scripture, and ruled out certain interpretations of Scripture as well.”
In theory, any such tradition would have been practiced by the early church before the death of the Apostles, or they could not have passed it on as a tradition.
Unfortunately, we do not know of an official list of anything in this category in that time period.
If we did have a list of practices, it would be interesting, but would not trump inspired Scripture as the final authority of truth.
As an aside ...
My favorite class in seminary was History of Doctrine. The prof. Took each major doctrine of our faith and traced it from the earliest time, through its stages of development and through denominations to its current form. Only original sources were used.
The church didn’t arrive at doctrines because they answered every single question and had no problems. The church arrived at them because they answered the most questions and created the fewest problems.
best to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.